Why be a closet atheist? I couldn't have imagined that in my past life. You're being dishonest with your wife and children over something you think is a fairy tale. If they came home saying they believed in Jack In The Bean Stalk, would you jump on the band wagon and withhold information from them?

Why don't you come out of the closet?

The problem is that atheists often face discrimination in our society (as well as in others). Most of the regulars here at WWGHA, including me, can tell you stories about various ways in which we've encountered prejudice. In my own case, probably the worst incident was when I was a senior in college, and a girl from a Catholic family told me that I had gotten her pregnant. Before telling me, she told her father, and he advised her to conceal the pregnancy from me, leave school, and have the baby at home, thus completely denying me my rights as a father. His justification for this was: "I don't want a fucking atheist raising my grandchild." And compared to what some people have had to deal with as a result of their atheism, that's actually pretty minor.

There's a saying in atheist circles that being an atheist today is kind of like being gay in the 1980s: we're confronted with a lot of severe prejudice, and there aren't even very many people (apart from atheists themselves, of course) who even think that there's anything wrong with it. I've told my story about Nicole to quite a few Christians, for example, and the only reaction I've ever gotten from any of them is indifference. However, if the same thing were to happen to a Jew, or a Hispanic, or a Muslim, or a {insert any other group you can think of here}, most people would be outraged and appalled at such a display of bigotry.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Walt Brown's PhD is in mechanical engineering. That is to say, in the engineering of machines and other human-created things. That does not qualify him to have an expert opinion on something in the field of geology (which is where this hydroplate theory of his would come from). So, his disagreement, while not moot, is not especially meaningful either.

By the way...where were Dr. Walt Brown's efforts to poke holes in this "hydroplate theory" of his? You lecture about scientists needing to do that, and yet you link us to a propagandistic Youtube video that purports to show how the supposed global flood happened, yet you don't show us any of his efforts to find problems this theory of his. Did you even look for them?

And also, this theory of his is more than a little too grand. It's not an effort to get at the truth, it's an effort by someone working outside their field of expertise to show that what they already believe is the truth (and more to the point, to attempt to explain away every piece of countervailing evidence in the process). He's already got this established idea of what he thinks happened - the flood written about in Genesis - and his theory is nothing more than a way to support what he already believes to be true.

EDIT--It took actually watching this video to really see just how awful of an explanation it really is. Seriously? He thinks that this water, stored in a circular layer ten miles down, simply burst free in a few moments and jetted into the stratosphere? Where much of it conveniently froze, allowing us to have frozen mammoths at the same time everything else was drowned? Totally ignoring what would happen to water that was moving at supersonic speeds to begin with. Friction creates heat, and the amount of friction (and thus, of heat) we're talking about would have caused this water to vaporize very quickly, generating a ballooning pocket of superheated air which would have gone outwards as well as outwards, frying anything that got anywhere near it to a crisp. In other words, instead of a great flood which drowned everything, it would have turned Earth (at least a large part of Earth) into a giant frying pan. Or maybe an expanding fuel-air bomb would be a better analogy. The point is that nothing anywhere near this event would have survived long enough to be drowned.

It gets even more fanciful after that. Instant creation of fossils due to sediment from eroded rocks? While I will grant that this kind of rapid burial is one of the requirements for fossils to be made, there are serious problems with this idea of his. First off, there's nowhere near enough fossils to account for the sheer number of animals which would have been killed in a mass extinction like this, second, there's too many different kinds of fossils to explain as dying in a single cataclysmic event such as this, and third, even straightforward carbon dating (which is accurate to about 50,000 years) demonstrates that most of these fossils are much older than his 5,000 year figure.

Then he talks about how these subterranean chambers would have buckled, creating the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is at least semi-plausible, though not in the way he suggested. This spherical, subterranean chamber he proposed, which had to be under a tremendous amount of pressure, simply couldn't have had enough support to keep from collapsing in on itself, which would have caused a worldwide catastrophe of shattering earthquakes as the entire upper crust of the planet settled in on itself. We're talking earthquakes that make the worst ones on record look tame. Doesn't matter if you were on a boat or on the land - it would probably have killed every human being, either from the direct effect of the earthquakes or the massive tsunamis that would have happened on bodies of water. Since the ark was on dry land, it would have been so badly damaged that it would have sunk almost instantly, assuming it could have survived getting hit by various walls of water in the first place.

And that completely ignores the fact that we have records from human civilizations from before the supposed time of the flood, and which continued on afterward, without breaks. If this flood had actually happened, all of these civilizations would have ended right then and there, and there would be no 'after' records'.

In short, this is garbage masquerading as science. A pitiful attempt by a mechanical engineer to devise a way for his belief to be true, rather than a serious attempt to come at the facts. And it's got logical and scientific holes big enough to sail an ocean liner through, as I just showed.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 09:54:11 AM by jaimehlers »

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I knew I was an atheist for many reasons. The one that mainly sticks out is thinking about the myth that there will be an afterlife with Jesus/god etc... There is no rationale a person could logically come to in believing in an afterlife let alone one with man made character from a book from once upon a very long time ago...

I'm sorry, but this is just another man with a silver tongue pretending to have all the answers and why our position hasn't been thought about or reasoned. This man is just another liar with a smile. I try to have a smile back but it's ever so increasingly difficult to knowing what they believe to be true is the biggest white lie ever told this century.

These same types of people will go watch a magic show with a great magician showing people being sawed in half, levitation, disappearing acts etc... All these illusions are done with slight of hand and trickery to be sure. This same person understands this and hopefully wouldn't walk away from a David Copperfield show thinking he was the real deal regardless how much emotion and sense of wonder to the mystifying illusions trying proclaim that he is a messiah etc...

In other words, he is perfectly content with doing this "slight of tongue" with a character from long ago but doesn't apply the same "slight of hand" logic to it he would with someone today. Now he is just another guy with a silver tongue for an ancient person proclaimed to be not only a magician of his time but the magician of the universe. And this person expects all of us to believe this because he was moved by a show sort speak...

This to me is a very dangerous and almost schizophrenic way to live your life and view the world but it's accepted because its religion.

Anyways, good luck with your burger joint. There is another religion where the cow is sacred and you would labeled as the devil. But hey, you have Jesus when you meet in him in the afterlife you guys can enjoy a burger or two I suppose.

I don't think anyone will have heard of David Copperfield or anyone else from our generation 2000 years from now. Just saying.

Really... You don't think a magician like David Copperfield would be worshiped as a god back in those days!?

You are either denying reality, denying the past and/or don't understand the past in correlation/comparison within today's context of human knowledge and technology, pretending to be naive, being purposely naive, or just plain being a liar for christ. All things being considered and posted by you... I think you are being conveniently naive which would make you a liar.

Please tell me there's a chance you may be unkowningly naive?

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Support this assertion with evidence. Tell me evidence that couldn't equally apply to the Grecian Gods using the Iliad.

If I thought that doing so would bring you closer to God, I would. Just don't forget, saying the Bible isn't the truth is also a truth claim that you have to back up.

Perhaps you're not getting the phrase "couldn't equally apply to the Grecian Gods using the Iliad." Either that, or you would require someone to prove the Iliad isn't true before accepting the claim the Grecian Gods exist and should be worshipped.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

So Justin, you were an atheist. Think about when you were an atheist and remember that I, as an atheist, don't accept woo, logical fallacies.

Tell me, how do I spererate what you are saying from a mental breakdown or a lie.

You know, evidence. That simple

Tell me evidence that couldn't equally apply to the Grecian Gods using the Iliad.

From a lie, you can't for sure, and God wouldn't have it any other way. From a mental breakdown, I'd have to ask what other areas of my life would you expect to see signs of that mental breakdown, bc me or others don't see any, quite the opposite really.

There is no evidence I can give you. Only God can do that. The reality is that it takes more faith not to believe in God then the opposite.

If there is no evidence you can give me...then your claim has every bit of weight than someone who states they believe in Hercules or the Flying Spaghetti monster or Santa Claus.

Therefore the statement:

The reality is that it takes more faith not to believe in God then the opposite.

has all the merit of

The reality is that it takes more faith not to believe in Santa Claus then the opposite.

I even bolded them both so they have equal visual weight. They are the intellectual equivalent.

You are a grown man going on about the importance of believing in Santa Claus as far as I am concerned.

But as I've said to say there isn't a God requires evidence as well. What's yours? I don't get into the evidence game bc it's futile. You can't prove someone into loving someone.

The premise of your statements are wrong. Just bc I didn't give you and evidence doesn't mean there is none. The reality is there is a mountain of evidence to prove not only God's existence but that Jesus is God as well. If you want evidence I've posted several links throughout this thread that are filled with evidence.

On the contrary there is no evidence to suggest Santa is real.

Said "evidence" in your links amounts to other people who say Santa is real. That's not evidence; that's other peoples opinions.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

You can't have a relationship with someone and then say you didn't or believe you didn't.

Incorrect: Santa Claus

Lets start of with a basic question: Do you acknowledge people hallucinate, lie, and exaggerate?

If you think you had an actual relationship with Santa, there is no way to the say you didn't and be telling the truth.

Yes people do all those things.

If you acknowledge people hallicinate, lie, and exxagerate...than you acknowledge people will give you incorrect information, intended or not.

As such, if that information does not match your day to day experience, Is it wrong to treat it with skepticism?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

If we were living in the ancient Aztec society of Mexico, we would be surrounded by millions of people who believed with all their might that their gods were real. They had the sacred writings, priests, holidays, and slaves sacrificed on altars regularly to prove it. Their ancestors had created images of the gods, and their ancestors would not lie. The continued existence of the universe itself proved that their gods were real.

1) Did the Aztec gods really exist? If not, why did people worship them for thousands of years, give their lives for them, organize their society around them? 2) What evidence could a Christian show to the Aztec people that would convince them that their gods were not real?

Remember, the Aztec were conquered by the Spanish and forced to convert to Christianity. That is why most Mexicans are Christians today. The conquest did not mean that the Aztec gods were not real, it just showed that the Spanish were more ruthless and had better diseases.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

^^^I agree. Like gay Republicans who are in it for the tax breaks. Especially now since the Obama administration is giving gay married couples equal tax benefits, despite right-wing outrage. I'm like, why the eff are you hanging with people who hate you?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

There are in fact no atheists that are republicans. If you run into one on the net, they are trolls or scams.

If you have right wingy ideas and are an atheist, you eventually turn libertarian.

Sure there are; for the most part they are towards the Libertarian side who decided to be part of a party that can win an election.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The county I live in is 98% republican. The average income, if you do not farm, is $20,000 to $30,000 a year. I never understood why these people voted as they do. You should hear them talk about health care. Most do not have coverage or very poor coverage. Seems like every weekend their is some kind of fund raiser to help someone with medical bills. Yet they continue to suck up the GOP juice.

If you have right wingy ideas and are an atheist, you eventually turn libertarian.

That's even worse.

I'm not sure on that one. As outspokenly anti-Libertarian as I can be sometimes; they start off the the very correct premise, "More regulation is not always the answer." Unfortunately as soon a they became a party, it was turned into the absolutely ludicrous premise "Less regulation is always the answer"

The core example, Rearden Steel, works on magic.Its workers arrive via roads that government didn't build...magic.These workers don't decide to rise up and kill their oppressor managers...magic.They are educated to be productive by no one....magic.They don't get sick from unregulated food...magic.No one steals the output of the factory...magic.There is a demand for the steel without building regulations or a military to buy it...magic.It can get the product to its customers without seaport and rail systems that only are efficient when they are standardized and regulated by a central authority...magic.Money exists to buy raw materials and sell finished product....magic.The corporate structure, which requires an advanced court system to protect investors from mismanagement....doesn't need one because it is magic.

"Going Galt" would ruin everything because there is no one waiting in the wings for people to retire or die, despite it actually happen several times a day in the real world, because...well, magic.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

A libertarian guy I know is an airplane mechanic. He hates the government, seemingly not realizing that he would have no job if not for the government. His company is totally dependent on government contracts.

How many planes do individual consumers buy vs the military? And who would ever get on a plane if they were not strictly inspected and regulated by the government?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

A libertarian guy I know is an airplane mechanic. He hates the government, seemingly not realizing that he would have no job if not for the government. His company is totally dependent on government contracts.

How many planes do individual consumers buy vs the military? And who would ever get on a plane if they were not strictly inspected and regulated by the government?

No to mention the vast amount of land needed for an airport.....would such expanses exist on the coasts without some government interference?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

It seems our friend Justin has been absent from the thread built in honor of his miraculous conversion for some time. Since he is away, I thought one of his website postings would be entertaining and enlightening. I read Justin's website on occasion... it reminds me of how my brain used to "work," back when I was a theist. This incredibly long gem is from a special guest posting from Darrin, doe hunter of the gods, on JO's website. I'm glad Darrin is now on the straight and narrow after a misspent youth of drugs and being “hired by mafia related associates." It's full of the zany nonsense we all love about theist conversion tales, but I really like how Darrin the hunter gives us a real-life, living and breathing example of SPAG (without even realizing it):

Quote

Now my relationship with God is not as fancy as many of you. In fact it was 9 long years before I heard the voice of the Lord. While I was jogging down an old gravel road in Illinois, God spoke to me and simply said, “Ask me for something.” I stopped immediately and stood in the hot sun wondering if I had lost my mind. After all I had just heard a voice. I literally shook my head and stated aloud, “What?” God then said, “Ask me for something boy.” I believe to this day that God used the word “boy” because it’s a slang word I often used and was something I saw as confirmation. Kinda like God speaking to me like I speak.